Is Zone System applicable to digital photography?

[chris_duim]

<p>I am a bit unsure about how to apply the Zone System in terms of metering/exposure for digital photography. From what I understand from my reading photography books, you find the mid-tones in a scene (after identifying the extreme ends in terms of tone), meter from there and fire away. But would your using a dSLR (such as the D700) with spot metering be acceptable in this situation? Or should one rely on a handheld meter (that would again necessitate another learning curve, not to mention added steps in photography). I am thinking of the high contrast situations where there is a bright area on the frame, some dark areas and a subject who understably will have to be treated as the middle gray in exposure.<br>

Can I have some bit of help as I find such scenes very difficult to expose properly (an example would be shooting a person at night with the Eiffel Tower lit in the background).</p>

 

[johnny_anderson]

<p>Yes, the zone system has been adapted to color photography. Spot metering should help locating the correct point for mid tones. The problems is translating the BW zone midtones to color midtones. Here's a couple of links:</p>

<p>This is link is for the March 2010 issue of Outdoor Photographer magazine.<br>

http://www.outdoorphotographer.com/how-to/shooting/the-digital-zone-system.html</p>

<p>I found this DVD to be very helpful.<br>

http://www.photoshopcafe.com/video/products/zones.htm</p>

<p>I sure there is more info on the net but these two came to mind first.</p>

[david_littleboy__tokyo__ja]

<p>Bahman Farzad's books on spot metering and the zone system (e.g. The Confused Photographer's Guide to On-Camera Spotmetering) are an excellent introduction to the concepts involved. Once you've read through one of those (which will answer your last question), you can move on to other discussions of the Zone System.</p>

<p>Some will argue that the full Zone System is a system for dealing with B&W negative films and wet projection printing, and as such isn't all that applicable to digital photograph. But at the least, zone exposure concepts as discussed in Farzad's books are usefull.</p>

[ben_goren]

<p>Chris,</p>

 

<p>That would depend on what you mean by the term, “Zone System.”</p>

 

<p>On the one hand, as described by Mr. Adams, it is, indeed, a technique for exposing,

processing, and printing images using black-and-white film.</p>

 

<p>On the other hand, it is also a way of seeing a scene as tonal values, making conscious

decisions about how to interpret values, and being successful in executing your interpretation.</p>

 

<p>I’m sure that Mr. Adams considered the System most importantly to be about the latter,

and only developed the former as one way of executing it.</p>

 

<p>That writ, digital sensors, though they have much in common with film, behave in significantly

different ways. Exposing a digital sensor the same way as one would film will work for most scenes,

but not for challenging ones.</p>

 

<p>The ultimate goal in digital exposure is to select a setting that first retains information in all

subject areas you consider significant, and secondly captures the most possible information.</p>

 

<p>I would suggest always aiming for a standard, traditional exposure, such as by metering from a

gray card. Many advocate “Expose To The Right” (ETTR) as a technique, but the

advantages of that system were insignificant by the second generation of DSLRs, and imperceptible

by the third — and the danger of overexposure remains significant.</p>

 

<p>When the dynamic range is such that a standard exposure results in blown highlights or blocked

shadows, first try to fix the light (such as by altering the artificial light or waiting for more favorable

natural light). If that is impractical, then know how to read your camera’s histogram and

preview image, and select an exposure that only blows highlights you’re willing to sacrifice

and only blocks shadows you’d clip to full black anyway.</p>

 

<p>Your particular example of a person at night in front of the Eiffel Tower is a textbook example of

needing to fix the light. The obvious way would be by adding artificial light; See Strobist and Planet Neil for

excellent techniques on how to do so. The not-so-obvious way would be by waiting for that magic ten minutes or so shortly after sunset (or before sunrise) when the Tower is (presumably) lit but the sky retains a great deal of light and color and when ambient light, though subdued, remains (barely) sufficient for tripod-based portraiture. Spend a few evenings and mornings watching not the sunrise and sunset but your surroundings and you’ll soon be able to spot it, though it doesn’t always happen (due to cloud cover) and never lasts long.</p>

 

<p>The application of the Zone System would then come in post-processing, where you make all

your tonal adjustments on the computer. This would even include simulating the effects of colored

filters, as such can be done more subtly, creatively, and precisely in Photoshop (and Camera Raw)

than ever could be done with glass in front of the lens. (Polarizers still have a place in the field, of

course.)</p>

 

<p>One last observation: if the subject is static — or even if it doesn’t move very fast

or very much — the dynamic range of a digital camera be readily expanded to encompass

pretty much any range, simply by making multiple exposures with different shutter speeds and

merging them together in post-processing. Doing so presents all sorts of challenges, not the least of

which is getting results that don’t look over-the-top cheesy, but the technique can be quite

effective.</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</p>

[sknowles]

<p>It is useful with digital photography (color or b&w) to some degree, but my experience is that it works best with both spot metering (camera) and incidental light reading (meter). This way you determine the range and the mid-zone, and adjust accordingly. The problem, however, at least what I've seen in tests (Canon 5D), is that pushing the mid-zone with digital compresses the dynamic range one or two zones at the extreme end you're pushing.</p>

[bobcossar]

<p>In a word....NO.<br>

The zone system as used in film has a number of procedures which have no analog in digital.<br>

so.....no matter the arguments presented...the easy and correct answer is a resounding NO.<br>

Regards, Robert</p>

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>The zone system as used in film has a number of procedures which have no analog in digital.<br /> so.....no matter the arguments presented...the easy and correct answer is a resounding NO.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It must be delightful to be so free of doubt and shadings of meanings.</p>

<p>But no matter the arguments presented, the easy and correct answer is nonetheless a resounding YES.<br /> The use of film is only one kind of application of the zone system (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_system">link</a> ). ;)</p>

<p>Whether it's <em>necessary</em> in digital to be so careful and work out the details in advance of the dynamic range of the image, is yet another question, of course. It surely can't hurt the ability of the artist to produce a planned, as opposed to a happenstance, image. It could even be argued (as above) that HDR is a kind of dumb person's zone system. There is also an even more primitive version called the <a href="../casual-conversations-forum/00Qwkz">Ozone System</a> , elsewhere on this website.</p>

[chris_duim]

<p>Let me try to summarize what has been written on this post - it is useful tool but may have limitations. What is also apparent is the importance of post-processing, something that I will have to put some learning effort too.<br>

I will look into the links provided and see how my practice will make this system workable. I will have to realize the imitations and adjust accordingly in terms of technique, equipment (handheld light meter and gray card?) and expectations.<br>

Thank you and hope to see my photos improve with the said advise.</p>

[bobcossar]

<p>JDM.....Yes, it IS delightful to be free of doubt in this matter. I taught the ZS at college for a number of years, and I do know what I'm talking about.<br>

No mention is even made by anyone of the substantial amount of testing which must be done to use the ZS with film.</p>

<p>* The exposure meter must be calibrated <em>for each type of film used.</em><br>

* The transmission stop,(the T-Stop) must be determined for <em>each lens used. </em> A nightmare with many zooms.<br>

<em>*</em> Base development must be determined for <em>each film used, and for each deveolper used.</em><br>

<em>* The exact iso of each film used </em> must be tested and set.</p>

<p>That all done.....and if you are picky, you may want to use a transmission densitometer to get hard numbers....you then adjust toe density with exposure, and then adjust highlight compression densities by the choice of developer and time, temp., and agitation. There IS NO analogous process in digital photography.<br>

There is value in knowing just how highlight values are......but that's only one small part of it all.<br>

So....if you want to make use of the ZS in digital, you must first learn exactly <strong>what</strong> it is.<br>

I'd suggest reading the Adams book "The Negative' and Fred Picker has written some books on the subject which are a little easier to read.<br>

Regards, Robert</p>

<p> </p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I'd have to side with Robert Cossar on this. Short version: No.</p>

<p>The Zone System cannot be transferred to digital and still qualify as the Zone System. By the time the necessary alterations are made to accommodate the digital process, it's no longer the Zone System, so it serves no useful purpose to call it the Zone System.</p>

<p>What most folks mean when they talk about using the Zone System with digital is they're applying only the sensitometry aspect, at most. In many cases they're referring only to spot metering and assuming that means they're using the Zone System. That would be equivalent to color slide film shooters claiming they're using the Zone System because they used spot metering, an old debate pre-dating the digital era that you can research here on photo.net and elsewhere around the web by Googling the archives.</p>

<p>Further complicating the issue is the occasional practice of hybrid old/new, for example, making transparencies from digital capture for contact printing on light sensitive papers including for cyanotypes and other processes.</p>

<p>Getting optimal results from digital demands mastering an entirely different set of information and skills. There's no real advantage to attempting to shoehorn a system designed around b&w silver halide emulsions into another entirely different system. In general, this seems to further confuse people rather than to enlighten them. You're better off learning the fundamentals of sensitometry, exposure and how to apply the advantages of digital toward your end goal, whether web display or print.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Yes Robert, I had in fact looked at your site page, so was not unaware of your pedagogical knowledge of the field.</p>

<p>As a university professor myself, I also taught lots of things, but to paraphrase Glendower and Hotspur in <em>Henry the IV (I)</em> : "you may teach the zone system, so may any man, but do the students learn when you do teach?"</p>

<p>I take your point; but I am, notwithstanding Lex's support of your position, less certain that the answer you gave encompasses the totality of Adams' system so briefly. For just one example, Adams, at the end, was shooting on Type 72 Polaroid with the same care and much of the same approach he used for his negatives and prints. Did this mean he abandoned his "Zone" system?</p>

<p>Lex at least gives us some reason to consider his answer, but you did not in your original short statement. Plain assertion is not that helpful <strong>in this particular forum</strong> of all forums. I am glad you had more to say, but I think I may have read <em>The Negative</em> nearly as many times as you have, and a great deal more besides. It is also nice to know the difference between homology and analogy (not the answer, however, given my one of my students in an exam).</p>

<p> </p>

[bobcossar]

<p>JDM.....You may recall in the film "the Karate Kid" <em>'My job TEACH.....Your job LEARN'</em> but I realise that Hotspur and Glendower were born too early to have benefited from this wisdom.....</p>

<p>Regards, Robert...:)</p>

<p> </p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>For the record, I consider it admirable that any new photographer or photographer who is new to digital photography would want to learn the Zone System in order to improve their photography. And I do believe they will learn some valuable lessons.</p>

<p>My only disagreement concerns whether the fundamentals of the Zone System have direct applications to the digital process. I just believe it's better to study the fundamentals that have been developed specifically in response to the unique qualities of digital capture and digital editing. In this case, understanding the pros and cons of ETTR and HDR would probably be more productive for most folks.</p>

<p>And on that subject, there are cons to ETTR which are often ignored. For example, it's not a foolproof method for cameras with limited histogram displays (such as my Nikon D2H). I would need to methodically photograph a graduated scale of tones from black to white, and an entire Macbeth chart for color response, compare the results on the D2H histogram with the results of the same photographs in raw in a digital editing program that shows the full histogram information - rather than only one channel after JPEG processing - in order to expose the flaws of blindly applying ETTR without regard to these discrepancies. To be truly useful for precise, repeatable results, I'd need to create a laminated card with data to carry in my bag to be able to meter precisely for every conceivable situation so I'd know when to compensate for the differences in response to red, green, blue, etc.</p>

<p>So using the expose-to-the-right technique for any particular model digital camera is just as demanding a discipline as learning the fundamentals of the Zone System and the characteristic responses of individual types of b&w films. The end goal is the same, and the methodologies are somewhat similar, but the actual techniques and nomenclature are different enough to warrant discarding the Zone System as being directly useful in digital capture.</p>

[jack_welsh]

<p>If person takes a reading of a portion of the subject, (a shadow with detail for example) To place that into a certain zone of a grey scale. Then, that is at least, a modified method .</p>

[bobcossar]

<p>Not really, Jack. Assuming you have done the needed tests, you now have the problem of knowing just <em>how many zones</em> , compared to the classic ten, your sensor covers. Also not all manufacturers place their "middle grey" on Zone 5.<br>

There's more too....but lets say you do as you suggest, and everything else falls magically into place, which it won't.....what steps do you take to process the image, a la ZS, next?<br>

As Lex says....I paraphrase a little.....learn the digital requirements of getting a great image and forget the old film systems.<br>

Regards, Robert</p>

[chris_duim]

<p>I am reading stuff that seems to point out significant differences between digital and film and how the Zone and ETTR/HDR are also different. I am able to catch most of what is written, despite my being new to the hobby.<br>

On a practical note then, for high contrast situations, is it advisable to use the spot over matrix (I am using a D700) over the presumed middle gray and shoot from there. This may mean some use of Manual setting of A and S in some situations, but that is something that I will have to learn.<br>

I do have Thom Hogan's D700 guide, and his advise for the most part was that matrix metering does a pretty good job in most instances (I think even in high contrast situations but he did have some cautionary words about these photo situations). WHile my experience with the D700 in such situations do agree with his, as written in his guide, I do find a minority of shots that had blown highlights and lost dark detail in some situations. THis is what triggered my query on whether learning the ZOne System and applying such in these situations would make more sense than relying on matrix metering to do the trick.</p>

 

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"THis is what triggered my query on whether learning the ZOne System and applying such in these situations would make more sense than relying on matrix metering to do the trick."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Learning to master spot metering will definitely benefit your photography for situations where matrix or center weighted averaging metering may be fooled, such as by strong backlighting or other extremes. But it isn't necessary to master the Zone System in order to enjoy the benefits of spot metering and applying it to your digital photography.</p>

<p>Here's a website with useful information and illustrations for learning spot metering: http://www.spotmetering.com</p>

<p>Note that the author of the articles on that website refers to a "digital Zone System". Personally, I still disagree with attempts to force the nomenclature from one medium (b&w light sensitive emulsions) to fit an entirely different type of medium (digital capture), just as I found it inaccurate to attempt to force the principles of the Zone System to fit the unique needs of color slide film photography. It probably seems like I'm nitpicking but spot metering is only one aspect of sensitometry and by itself does not equal the "Zone System", any more than a camera body alone - without a lens, flash or other accessories - equals a camera system. But the content of that site is otherwise very useful.</p>

[chris_duim]

<p>Lex, your opinion on the (non)applicability of the Zone system to digital photography does seem to make real sense. Given the little reading I had of Ansel Adams work and those on other fora, there seems to be no universal acceptance on the general applicability of Ansel's system to digital.<br>

All these point to mastering priciples of exposure/sensitometry with vigorous application in actual photography. I had hopes of improving my skills with an understanding of the Zone system (my first encounter was the article by Ken Rockwell) but now I realize there is much more to all these. Indeed practice makes perfect.<br>

I have accessed the links provided here by you and others who have chimed in. They are full of principles that I need to digest and hopefully make sense of so that I can apply them.<br>

In case I falter (again), you will be sure to hear from me (again).<br>

Thanks to all.</p>

[greg_peterson3]

<p>I spent a few days with Adams at one of his workshops in Carmel back in the early 60's. He loved photographic technology, and I'd bet that, were he working today, he'd have produced a Zone System plug-in for Photoshop!</p>

<p>I like to think of the center slider in the "Curves" control as the Zone V adjustment.</p>